Stephanie Korn1, Maike Wilk2, Stefanie Voigt2, Stephan Weber3, Thomas Keller3, Roland Buhl2. 1. Department of Pulmonary, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, Germany, Stephanie.Korn@unimedizin-mainz.de. 2. Department of Pulmonary, Mainz University Hospital, Mainz, Germany. 3. ACOMED Statistik, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a surrogate marker for airway inflammation, supporting the diagnostic pathway and treatment decisions for asthma patients. OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study was to compare the new analyser Vivatmo pro (Bosch, BV) with NIOX VERO (Circassia, CN) and CLD (Ecomedics, EC). METHODS: In 100 asthmatics (median 53 years [range 20-87], 62% female, 86% on inhaled corticosteroids [mean 1,300 μg beclomethasone dipropionate or equivalent], 35% treated with biologics) 2 FeNO measurements per device were performed. Additionally, the success rate to achieve a valid NO value was evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of the patients had FeNO values below 50 ppb. Median NO concentrations were 31 ppb (range 6-194) for BV, 33 ppb (9-164) for CN and 31ppb (7-353) for EC. Bland-Altman plots suggested an agreement within the predefined limits of ±5 ppb for all analysers within the therapeutically relevant range (0-70 ppb). The highest agreement in FeNO levels were between BV and EC with mean differences of -0.26 (95% CI -1.48 to 0.95) vs. 1.52 (95% CI 0.4-2.6) ppb for CN and EC. The results indicate an equivalence of the methods (two-one sided t test-equivalence test: p < 0.0001, ±5 ppb margins). Acceptance of the measurements was high for all devices (97%). The highest success rate to obtain 2 valid NO values without failed attempts was achieved with the BV analyser (73 vs. 62% for the CN analyser and 46% for the EC analyser). CONCLUSIONS: For the range between 0 and 70 ppb, FeNO concentrations measured with all 3 devices were statistically equivalent within predefined acceptance criteria and did not differ in a clinically relevant way. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
BACKGROUND: Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a surrogate marker for airway inflammation, supporting the diagnostic pathway and treatment decisions for asthmapatients. OBJECTIVES: Aim of this study was to compare the new analyser Vivatmo pro (Bosch, BV) with NIOX VERO (Circassia, CN) and CLD (Ecomedics, EC). METHODS: In 100 asthmatics (median 53 years [range 20-87], 62% female, 86% on inhaled corticosteroids [mean 1,300 μg beclomethasone dipropionate or equivalent], 35% treated with biologics) 2 FeNO measurements per device were performed. Additionally, the success rate to achieve a valid NO value was evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of the patients had FeNO values below 50 ppb. Median NO concentrations were 31 ppb (range 6-194) for BV, 33 ppb (9-164) for CN and 31ppb (7-353) for EC. Bland-Altman plots suggested an agreement within the predefined limits of ±5 ppb for all analysers within the therapeutically relevant range (0-70 ppb). The highest agreement in FeNO levels were between BV and EC with mean differences of -0.26 (95% CI -1.48 to 0.95) vs. 1.52 (95% CI 0.4-2.6) ppb for CN and EC. The results indicate an equivalence of the methods (two-one sided t test-equivalence test: p < 0.0001, ±5 ppb margins). Acceptance of the measurements was high for all devices (97%). The highest success rate to obtain 2 valid NO values without failed attempts was achieved with the BV analyser (73 vs. 62% for the CN analyser and 46% for the EC analyser). CONCLUSIONS: For the range between 0 and 70 ppb, FeNO concentrations measured with all 3 devices were statistically equivalent within predefined acceptance criteria and did not differ in a clinically relevant way. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Raed A Dweik; Peter B Boggs; Serpil C Erzurum; Charles G Irvin; Margaret W Leigh; Jon O Lundberg; Anna-Carin Olin; Alan L Plummer; D Robin Taylor Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Ildiko Horváth; Peter J Barnes; Stelios Loukides; Peter J Sterk; Marieann Högman; Anna-Carin Olin; Anton Amann; Balazs Antus; Eugenio Baraldi; Andras Bikov; Agnes W Boots; Lieuwe D Bos; Paul Brinkman; Caterina Bucca; Giovanna E Carpagnano; Massimo Corradi; Simona Cristescu; Johan C de Jongste; Anh-Tuan Dinh-Xuan; Edward Dompeling; Niki Fens; Stephen Fowler; Jens M Hohlfeld; Olaf Holz; Quirijn Jöbsis; Kim Van De Kant; Hugo H Knobel; Konstantinos Kostikas; Lauri Lehtimäki; Jon Lundberg; Paolo Montuschi; Alain Van Muylem; Giorgio Pennazza; Petra Reinhold; Fabio L M Ricciardolo; Philippe Rosias; Marco Santonico; Marc P van der Schee; Frederik-Jan van Schooten; Antonio Spanevello; Thomy Tonia; Teunis J Vink Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: David B Price; Roland Buhl; Adrian Chan; Daryl Freeman; Elizabeth Gardener; Clifford Godley; Kevin Gruffydd-Jones; Lorcan McGarvey; Ken Ohta; Dermot Ryan; Jörgen Syk; Ngiap Chuan Tan; TzeLee Tan; Mike Thomas; Sen Yang; Priyanka Raju Konduru; Marcus Ngantcha; Martina Stagno d'Alcontres; Therese S Lapperre Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Robert C Strunk; Stanley J Szefler; Brenda R Phillips; Robert S Zeiger; Vernon M Chinchilli; Gary Larsen; Kevin Hodgdon; Wayne Morgan; Christine A Sorkness; Robert F Lemanske Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: R I Liem; T Baynard; L L Hsu; R Garofano; N S Green; J S Hankins; K K Ness; M Rodeghier; S Radom-Aizik Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2020-10-09
Authors: Christina Bal; Marco Idzko; Sabina Škrgat; Andrea Koch; Katrin Milger; Christian Schulz; Sonja Zehetmayer; Eckard Hamelmann; Roland Buhl; Stephanie Korn Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 33.795